5 ms·

You think the US would actually retaliate against a limited nuclear attack in an isolated place with a massive nuclear counterattack? (I can see it in a cold wa

You think the US would actually retaliate against a limited nuclear attack in an isolated place with a massive nuclear counterattack? (I can see it in a cold war scenario against the USSR, with tanks moving into Europe and the world order at stake) I think the US woudln't and, of course, shouldn't. The usual game-theoretical reasonings in this regard are misguided and shortsighted.

berbec 9y ago
I don't think a normal, sanely led US would do that either. More likely the president and joint chiefs would sit in a room and discuss "a proportional response". Turning most of North Korea uninhabitable for generations does not meet that standard. On the other hand, I can see President MAGA saying "turn the entire peninsula into one large crater," a series of Generals trying to talk him out of it and getting fired. An apocalyptic Saturday Night Massacre until he found the just-promoted-ex-Colonel who would issue the order for him.
- jen729w 9y ago
  Not sure why this has been downvoted. It may have been lyrically written but the point is sound. The guy with his finger on your button is a fucking madman.
ScottBurson 9y ago
I'd be interested for you to expand on your last sentence, because it seems to me that we would have no choice but to respond massively. Once Kim demonstrated a willingness to launch an offensive attack killing or endangering civilians, we'd have to assume he would do it again, and would therefore have to do our best at destroying all his launchers, and make every effort to kill him. He knows that, of course, which is why he's not going to do anything so stupid.
- Udik 9y ago
  I think the most extreme and remotely plausible thing NK could want to do (but that would already mean taking an incredible risk) is to direct a nuclear missile to explode somewhere on the ocean, far from any populated place but close enough to the west cost of the US to send a clear warning about their capabilities to reach a major US city if provoked. NK is never going to actually attack the US first, it would simply mean squandering all the effort made so far in building a credible deterrence. Deterrence is not deterrent anymore when you force the enemy to respond.
laretluval 9y ago
I can't think of a scenario where a US counterattack isn't more damaging to NK than whatever damage NK would manage to inflict on the US by nuking Hawaii.
jen729w 9y ago
Tragically "the US" now means "Donald Trump" specifically regarding their propensity/ability to retaliate to a nuclear strike. Yeah, I think he'd do it. He's a maniac.

berbec 9y ago

I don't think a normal, sanely led US would do that either. More likely the president and joint chiefs would sit in a room and discuss "a proportional response". Turning most of North Korea uninhabitable for generations does not meet that standard. On the other hand, I can see President MAGA saying "turn the entire peninsula into one large crater," a series of Generals trying to talk him out of it and getting fired. An apocalyptic Saturday Night Massacre until he found the just-promoted-ex-Colonel who would issue the order for him.

jen729w 9y ago
Not sure why this has been downvoted. It may have been lyrically written but the point is sound. The guy with his finger on your button is a fucking madman.

ScottBurson 9y ago

I'd be interested for you to expand on your last sentence, because it seems to me that we would have no choice but to respond massively. Once Kim demonstrated a willingness to launch an offensive attack killing or endangering civilians, we'd have to assume he would do it again, and would therefore have to do our best at destroying all his launchers, and make every effort to kill him. He knows that, of course, which is why he's not going to do anything so stupid.

Udik 9y ago
I think the most extreme and remotely plausible thing NK could want to do (but that would already mean taking an incredible risk) is to direct a nuclear missile to explode somewhere on the ocean, far from any populated place but close enough to the west cost of the US to send a clear warning about their capabilities to reach a major US city if provoked. NK is never going to actually attack the US first, it would simply mean squandering all the effort made so far in building a credible deterrence. Deterrence is not deterrent anymore when you force the enemy to respond.

laretluval 9y ago

I can't think of a scenario where a US counterattack isn't more damaging to NK than whatever damage NK would manage to inflict on the US by nuking Hawaii.

jen729w 9y ago

Tragically "the US" now means "Donald Trump" specifically regarding their propensity/ability to retaliate to a nuclear strike. Yeah, I think he'd do it. He's a maniac.